Necessitarianism is the doctrine that the physical universe operates according to nomological necessity. The Collins online English Dictionary defines it: the theory that every event, including any action of the human will, is the necessary result of a sequence of causes; determinism Though strongly related to determinism, Necessitarianism is held to be the strongest form of Determinism.

I propose that presence of Compatibilism within reality admits a Necessitarian function to the material universe and its derivatives—including (arguably) biological life and animal consciousness/intelligence—but not to intellectual operation, which introduces the contingency that produces a compatibilist reality.

Material Compatibilism

The compatibilist who is also a materialist is justified in accepting this doctrine because science reveals a compatibilist structure in a comparison of micro and macro realities.

Matter, reduced to its smallest parts, exists in a pure t value state that cannot be falsified. [This absolute state is attested to by our ability to apply mathematical precision to test hypotheses.] Mutability in mater only exists in complexities above its smallest constituents, and this mutability, so-conceived, is merely in perception, not in actuality. A piece of fruit in stages of decay—a form of mutability on the macro level—is, on the micro level, merely a chemical rearrangement of particles into other configurations. The signification of decay, a perception of the fruit’s acquiring a state of “inferiority” or falsification, is just an evaluation of its ability to provide goods (nourishment, pleasure, etc.) to agents. The view from perception only demonstrates the natural predisposition of moral agents to evaluate things and circumstances according to the instrumental value they’re able to provide. Material mutability is a perceptual construct peculiar to macro reality.

Thus, reality exhibits a compatibilist nature: the changeability of matter on the macro level is just a rearrangement of constituent elements supervised by the nomological certainty (immutability) of natural laws. The compatibilist principle is an expression of how Form works within existence. Form is the supervising/organizing Law of nature in a T-t union, where T is the value of Form, the external force [laws of nature] providing organizational management of the t value-forces of internal material particulars in their countless relationships. (internal and external are just illustrative markers to indicate difference in roles Form (laws of nature) and the information of matter (I) play within a single reality.

As was proposed elsewhere, the compatibilist nature of the material universe is hypothetically value-driven: reality consists, from this point of view, in various modes, kinds, quantities and qualities of value in inexhaustible connections and interactions. Value is like electricity: we talk about it, use it, respect it, notice its effects around us all day every day, but don’t actually “see” it. Correspondingly, I offer that we speak in value expressions (214 feet tall, 5.67mm diameter, 14,500 BTUs, 13 AUs from earth, 78 miles per hour, etc.) without grasping that we do so because we’re just describing complex value arrangements and relationships. The laws of nature are held to be factual and not logical, but this may be just because the lion’s share of our focus is mostly on macro-material reality. The distinction between logic and fact [each are expressions of different modes of value] blur once it’s recognized that the matter-energy unification is, behind the scene, just the exercise of value arrangements in different expressions.

Regardless of status quo indulgency, logic and fact are tightly woven together and coincide in common sense, as can be seen in Anne Conway [Anne Conway: The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (p. 29)], writing on the subject of mutability: “…let us consider the extent of …mutability. First, can one individual be changed into another, either of the same or of a different species? …this is impossible, for then the essential nature of things would change…

…if the essential nature of individuals could change into one another, it would follow that creatures would not have a true being inasmuch as we could not be certain of anything. Therefore all the innate ideas and precepts of truth, which all men find in themselves, would be false and, consequently, so would the conclusions drawn from them. For all true science or certainty of knowledge depends on the truth of objects, which we commonly call objective truths. If these objective truths were interchangeable, then the truth of any statement made about the object would also change. Therefore no statement could be invariably true, not even the clearest and most obvious, for example…that the whole is greater than its parts and that two halves make a whole.”

Ms. Conway’s quote speaks to at least two relevant issues. First, that P in the I=P^V is an immutable component of each iota of information. If P were mutable, particulars could not progress organizationally, and taxonomic scales would be unpopulated. Coherent, structured Individuals could not have materialized if particularity itself was susceptible to mutation. This is consistent with Conway’s declaration that mutability has necessary boundaries else there would exist no recognizable, species-related being (organizational structure) of particulars. Second, and more important, Conway can be interpreted as affirming [whether intentionally or not] that truth’s presence and subsistence undergirds the fabric of reality in her statement, “…all true science or certainty of knowledge depends on the truth of objects, which we commonly call objective truths. If these objective truths were interchangeable, then the truth of any statement made about the object would also change. Therefore no statement could be invariably true, not even the clearest and most obvious…"

Obviously Conway is not speaking of evolutionary or other sorts of gradual mutation, nor of the mutability conferred on particulars as part of natural life processes, but of the mutability of being qua being itself.

But what has the immutability of P to do with the Necessitarian and compatibilist doctrines?

Informationally speaking, If P is an immutable value, from whence comes devaluation? Necessitarianism is limited to absolute, deterministic values. Falsity, which naturally disrupts proper (t) function, doesn’t exist in matter. Matter cannot be devalued or falsified, except in macro-level perception of simple reorganization of base elements, as was shown. Therefore in neither P nor V in the I=P^V equation are falsifiable for the physical universe, in either its material or incorporeal existents, i.e., things or attributes.

Yet falsity is found in existents, creating tension and resistance in intellectual operation, commonly expressed as moral values, linked to beliefs, demeanors, character and behaviors.

Because the false can be appropriately assigned to organic entities—as in the judgment that cancer is a form of material falsity because it denies the perfection of health—at least some V in information must be falsifiable. Falsity in human essence produces a different kind of mutability than the spatiotemporal relocation addressed above, which is from a microcosmic point of view, illusory. Falsification of essence is, unlike relocation mutation, substantial and embedded in some quantity [fragmentally dispersed] of V within the particular soul. Falsity in the former is merely attributable, in the latter, actual.

Devaluation has reference to a standard, and the comprehensible and unambiguous standard is truth. Truth is logically an absolute. Of the two denominations of value, truth qua truth is always and ever the benchmark of sufficiency, propriety, adequacy and appropriateness. Because fragmentally falsified humans occupy and operate within a fragmentally falsified reality, there may be instances in which the choosing of false over true can be said to best serve purpose n, but no reasonable person can suggest that one should seek the false as a modus operandi for living life because falsity qua falsity only ever leads to truth’s opposite. The false is chaos to truth’s unity, incoherence to truth’s consistency, disorder to truth’s harmony, an advance toward death to truth’s development of life.

Theistic Necessitarianism admits the physical universe is deterministic, but that the operation of human agency has limited but effectual ability to resist Necessitarian inviolability, creating a compatibilist reality—the pattern for which itself, as was shown above, exists in the material realm.

The above isn’t saying anything new—different kind of value for matter than for intellect or soul—just wanted to demonstrate that unorthodox reductionist view of information has degrees of logical correspondence to various features of orthodox schemas of existence/reality.

Does this have anything to do with interdimensional reality? Probably not, but I had to ask.

The Earth dimension is made of material reality (material compatabilism), but Heaven, Hell, and other dimensions are not made of what we understand as matter (macro or micro), it's made of mind, pure consciousness, that is able to power up our human bodies and interact in this dimension as well as interdimensionally. I believe there is a determinism of relations that make themselves visible as value (logic and common sense) or what we desire to value due to the hidden currents of "past" interactions, such as what is represented in the forms of deja vus and other more obvious and relatable shared psychic connections. Are any moments, any beings, truly unknown to us or are they more forgotten subtle energies possessing different forms determinately guided?

Our souls, essences, do not change, only our actions while we are material in a dimension with a linear timeline.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Does this have anything to do with interdimensional reality? Probably not, but I had to ask.

These posts don't, but depending on what you mean I may have suggested something similar to Encode-Decode in another thread. I told him I have suspected for some time that humans could have the power to actually "create" realities. By this I don't mean create in any sense the reality we currently occupy, but create certain realities we and others would have access to in the afterlife. For example, the artist who creates a painting or writer who creates a work of fiction might be able to access them as "mini worlds" or separate dimensions in ways not applicable to this reality. This is pure speculation based on a few Biblical references, studying experiences of dozens of NDEs, etc. This is as close to what might be termed 'interdimensional reality' that I can think of.

I agree with the idea of a different nature of the afterlife dimension than here, as any Christian likely would, but not sure that it's pure consciousness. Might be, of course, depending on how you frame the notion.

Our souls, essences, do not change, only our actions while we are material in a dimension with a linear timeline.

I'm curious about this comment. I put forth in this and the other thread in this section the hypothesis that the human soul or essence is the only entity in existence capable of value change, or able to be actually falsified (as compared to attributed falsification for the material sphere) , i.e., the true state of one's essence can be corrupted to a false state fragmentally, such that falsification of essence has correlation to spatial components, primarily mind-brain relations such that falsification of mind would affect related information of neuronal components, just as physical brain components can conversely affect mind. This would account for both virtue and evil found in a set of beliefs of a particular person; some "areas" of essence (those which correlate to the formation of certain prescriptive beliefs) are falsified while adjacent areas remain primarily true and continue to seek the t-t union we call correspondence.

Question: in a world in which essence remains true (assuming this is correct interpretation of your comment), where does evil come from? How does evil come about?

the true state of one's essence can be corrupted to a false state fragmentally, such that falsification of essence has correlation to spatial components, primarily mind-brain relations such that falsification of mind would affect related information of neuronal components, just as physical brain components can conversely affect mind. This would account for both virtue and evil found in a set of beliefs of a particular person; some "areas" of essence (those which correlate to the formation of certain prescriptive beliefs) are falsified while adjacent areas remain primarily true and continue to seek the t-t union we call correspondence.

How would an essence become fragmented...a disconnect between brain and mind (and the mind is the conscious soul in my book) essentially?

Question: in a world in which essence remains true (assuming this is correct interpretation of your comment), where does evil come from? How does evil come about?

I'm gonna guess that evil is apart of our essence, then we free will it into our actions, but what triggers it's great affect on us and it's severity I have no clue. Some people describe their sense of being overtaken, almost possessed, by evil intentions and acting them out due to their environment being primed for it. At any rate, it lurks inside your being, your job is to choose not to draw from it's intent. The way I am describing it makes it seem like an alter-ego...maybe it is.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

How would an essence become fragmented...a disconnect between brain and mind (and the mind is the conscious soul in my book) essentially?

Fragmentation is just a way of looking at things. I laid out a simple formula elsewhere for an informational reality, where information--following our common treatment of matter--is reduced to what I take to be the elements necessary to describe reality from an informational point of view. Information in simplest form is reduced to single "iotas", a parallel concept to material reduction of atom, but abstract. Each iota would hypothetically contain particularity (P) and value (V), where P forms (obviously) specificity or particular things and V forms or is directed by/works in tandem with Form to develop properties, qualities, relations, etc. Iotas make up 'internal' reality. I use the term Form (F) to describe the 'external' organizing principle we call the natural laws on the material side of things, but information accounts for both matter and abstracta, such that F is dual-natured, imposing both factual [energy] and prescriptive [force, the moral dynamic] organizational power on internal elements.

If you think about it, even each subatomic particle has multiple properties or pieces of information, so it follows that there would be considerably more iotas of abstract information than there are atoms on the material side for each existent. Matter is more complex than abstract things. For example, in the abstract realm concepts like justice and freedom are informational ideas so simple we (or at least I) have to stop and think what makes one distinct from the other. This distinction is due to the [quantity of?] P of a concept, which gives each degrees of unequivocalness making it different from others.

So hypothetically even essence can be regarded as "bits" [iotas] of information if it's assumed each particle of matter has its own identifiable 'stuff'. This assumes force-value [life] simultaneously endues our material [energy-value] being. I have no problem assuming life in the lower animals is a natural process for theoretical reality-mapping purposes. Animal behavior seems to display deterministic traits, common naturalistic features and characteristics, but intellectual minds don’t follow that pattern, for reasons commonly argued. This view assumes that human life is more than a consciousness, but extends to the entire organic object. (I also think of mind as the conscious soul btw.) Informational fragmentation is able to give some account of how good and bad thoughts, intentions and actions can coexist in the same person: we are fragmentally falsified, and falsity, when it denies a proper t-t union of mind with prescriptive content, also imposes a f-t tension and resistance that skews the perfection of proper choice. There’s a third factor involved here, one that gives intellectual operation a sort of 3 dimensional power [will], but more theological than metaphysical.

The sin-physical sickness connection is interesting to me, but not something I've spent much time thinking about. On a base level, the causal connection between soul and body is obviously the missing piece of code for the essence/material connection, but looking through an informational lens, the connection is less surrealistic and a bit less murky. If at base all information is value, and value of both kinds (descriptive and prescriptive) permeate the human animal, then assuming the perfection of operation consists in a mutual working relationship (in whatever ways that might play out) between the two, it could follow that the connection is found in value.

For instance, it's well known that material corruption or traumatic brain injury affects cognitive capacities on a number of levels, suggesting a matter-essence causation (for those of us accepting the concept of soul). In informational terms this can be seen from a value standpoint: the energy-values of atoms (or molecules or cells, etc.) are co-endued with the force-values of essence such that a change in value of one is passed to (affects) the other. In reverse order, falsification of essence by process of persistent defective choice creates a f-f union [e.g., false belief: I’m relatively unaffected by drugs and the good they provide outweighs the bad they produce in me.] that can result in addiction. Thus, instead of an expected material-immaterial connection, falsification in essence passes value to the material side; addiction is the falsification of the material component. To inject a theological idea in here, falsification of matter seems rooted in reference to design. One example I use is that a house sufficiently abused can be said to be falsified insofar as it its mechanical, structural, electrical, etc. systems are rendered false with respect to the standards of its design—to provide a safe, comfortable and convenient shelter for humans. Correspondingly, the falsification of organics provides [as demonstrated in the thought experiment in earlier post, different thread] evidence that can be interpreted the same way. In a purely Necessitarian universe the reorganization or destruction of organic particulars can no more offer a sense of deprivation than the digging of a hole in wet sand. But we have laws against digging holes (with bullets or otherwise) in humans, and to a lesser extent higher animals. The force dynamic imposed by F suggests demonstrable levels of prescriptive strength (moral pressure) in the modification of organics, suggesting the falsification of a design standard.

I'm gonna guess that evil is apart of our essence, then we free will it into our actions, but what triggers it's great affect on us and it's severity I have no clue. Some people describe their sense of being overtaken, almost possessed, by evil intentions and acting them out due to their environment being primed for it. At any rate, it lurks inside your being, your job is to choose not to draw from it's intent. The way I am describing it makes it seem like an alter-ego...maybe it is.

I think informational paths can be mapped using the principles suggested above that would correspond strongly to every idea you pose here WD.

I believe we are on the same page. I have a simpler mind thus some of the science-tech terminology is stumping me a bit so I'll pose a few questions for clarification.

Informational fragmentation is able to give some account of how good and bad thoughts, intentions and actions can coexist in the same person: we are fragmentally falsified, and falsity, when it denies a proper t-t union of mind with prescriptive content, also imposes a f-t tension and resistance that skews the perfection of proper choice. There’s a third factor involved here, one that gives intellectual operation a sort of 3 dimensional power [will], but more theological than metaphysical.

Can you offer more explanation for the first sentence because it's not sinking in? Isn't much that is considered theological also considered metaphysical? Can't one's internal information, perhaps inspired by the person's essence such as love, be willed through one's emotional energies to become received as a physical sensory perception, touched by love, overcoming the internal to transform into the external as a physicality without any physical contact? Am I talking about the conscious will that transcends the internal until it is perceived by others externally without any contact other than their intentional willing? I'm starting to confuse myself.What are your thoughts on emotional energy and if you acknowledge its presence, its affects, where do you place it on the spectrum of information iotas (internal/external) as true to physical (F) conscious energy?

I'll probably reread your thoughts again then return with more questions once my lucidity returns...things are getting foggy.

Have you read where Plato described the physical location of the soul? He was absolutely correct in its placement within the human form. To discover how he ever came by that information would probably amaze me since it involved astral travel for myself.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Can you offer more explanation for the first sentence because it's not sinking in?

The statement was in reference to the problematic Christian doctrine that spirit or essence is wholly cleansed in a ‘born again’ experience. The problem is, born-again Christians exhibit the same propensities for sin as non-believers—who, according to evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine, should theoretically be worse sinners. To further the problem, a strong case can be made Scripturally that sin develops in the soul and is expressed in act. That raises the question, how does a soul wholly cleansed in a single born again experience still have capacity to sin if sin proceeds from essence [spirit] outward? That Christians to a large degree lead the same kinds of lives as morally-inclined non-believers tends to discredit this model of the born again claim.

A case can be made that faith required for salvation can be accomplished by a sufficient [not whole] cleansing of degrees of falsity from essence necessary to effect the needed t-t relationship which enables the union between a true prescriptive proposition and the mind, resulting in intellectual acceptance. This in reference to Christ’s statement, “…unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” Not going to get into the theological side of things overmuch, but commands to believe are not simple exhortations to agents to use their power of will to decide, as many Christians suppose—rather, they express the blueprint for how in a morally necessarian existence, each is made to will, via inner death and resurrection (destruction of the false state of one’s information and its rebirth to true).

That all reasonably law abiding persons are more or less equally fragmentally falsified and on more or less equal moral footing in regard to sin generally—while partial cleansing necessary to effect proper belief is accomplished in some—solves the logical dilemma above and allows for the sin found in all.

The t-t union mentioned above can broadly define the natural operational alliance between informational parts in a complex whole generally (as in sunlight’s union with plants to produce photosynthesis), but most often I’m describing the necessary value state for the information of a mind to unite with external propositional information. The mind whose information is sufficiently truth-bearing will, by virtue of this relation, unite in affirmation with true propositions (factual or moral) or propositions that are predominantly truth-bearing themselves. Conversely, because beliefs and worldviews are formed from a combination of energies and forces produced by both t-t unions and t-f dissonances, the sufficiently t-bearing mind (with respect to content presented to it) will reject false propositions. The more complex the information, the more likely it is to be only partly true; we’re fractionally falsified beings interpreting a partially falsified world. This seems theoretically able to account for the states of imperfection we find ourselves in.

Isn't much that is considered theological also considered metaphysical?

That’s my understanding too. I think metaphysical inquiry has a broader range of subject matter than philosophy proper, which tends to specialization. So metaphysics necessarily delves into territory [ethics, morality] that naturally has strong ties to religious belief.

What are your thoughts on emotional energy and if you acknowledge its presence, its affects, where do you place it on the spectrum of information iotas (internal/external) as true to physical (F) conscious energy?

Emotions are tough for me to get a handle on. They are one of two things I have trouble categorizing (the other is meaning). The fact that we can identify distinct emotions, i.e., anger from sadness, suggests they do have an informational structure (P or particularity) in the way I understand it.

Emotions have energy (more properly “force” as part of the life/organic dynamic) insofar as any piece of information has the energy necessary to “inform” another. I don’t know if emotions are just the outflow or expressions, the flow of reactions or “meanings” [effluent??] of consciousness that the mind discharges as a flower emits odor, or if they’re steadfast components of the informational makeup of minds, informational entities woven within minds [on the iotal level...new word?...you spoke of] and naturally activated as reactions to the processing of mental content. Used to think the former, now lean toward the latter. I do believe emotions, like minds, can be falsified and should be held in suspicion with regard to their impact on rational thought. Pretty much old school here: emotions should be withheld to the highest degree possible from rationalizing and not allowed to taint reason.

F (Form) in my thinking can be conscious energy [i.e., God], but can also be defined in secular terms, as is currently done. I believe the conscious aspect is necessary for a rational explanation of reality, but respect those who believe otherwise.

Have you read where Plato described the physical location of the soul? He was absolutely correct in its placement within the human form.

No. I was thinking the pineal, but that was someone else. Tried a brief Google but couldn’t find it. Where?

Necessitarianism is the doctrine that the physical universe operates according to nomological necessity. The Collins online English Dictionary defines it: the theory that every event, including any action of the human will, is the necessary result of a sequence of causes; determinism Though strongly related to determinism, Necessitarianism is held to be the strongest form of Determinism.

I propose that presence of Compatibilism within reality admits a Necessitarian function to the material universe and its derivatives—including (arguably) biological life and animal consciousness/intelligence—but not to intellectual operation, which introduces the contingency that produces a compatibilist reality.

Material Compatibilism

The compatibilist who is also a materialist is justified in accepting this doctrine because science reveals a compatibilist structure in a comparison of micro and macro realities.

Matter, reduced to its smallest parts, exists in a pure t value state that cannot be falsified. [This absolute state is attested to by our ability to apply mathematical precision to test hypotheses.] Mutability in mater only exists in complexities above its smallest constituents, and this mutability, so-conceived, is merely in perception, not in actuality. A piece of fruit in stages of decay—a form of mutability on the macro level—is, on the micro level, merely a chemical rearrangement of particles into other configurations. The signification of decay, a perception of the fruit’s acquiring a state of “inferiority” or falsification, is just an evaluation of its ability to provide goods (nourishment, pleasure, etc.) to agents. The view from perception only demonstrates the natural predisposition of moral agents to evaluate things and circumstances according to the instrumental value they’re able to provide. Material mutability is a perceptual construct peculiar to macro reality.

Thus, reality exhibits a compatibilist nature: the changeability of matter on the macro level is just a rearrangement of constituent elements supervised by the nomological certainty (immutability) of natural laws. The compatibilist principle is an expression of how Form works within existence. Form is the supervising/organizing Law of nature in a T-t union, where T is the value of Form, the external force [laws of nature] providing organizational management of the t value-forces of internal material particulars in their countless relationships. (internal and external are just illustrative markers to indicate difference in roles Form (laws of nature) and the information of matter (I) play within a single reality.

As was proposed elsewhere, the compatibilist nature of the material universe is hypothetically value-driven: reality consists, from this point of view, in various modes, kinds, quantities and qualities of value in inexhaustible connections and interactions. Value is like electricity: we talk about it, use it, respect it, notice its effects around us all day every day, but don’t actually “see” it. Correspondingly, I offer that we speak in value expressions (214 feet tall, 5.67mm diameter, 14,500 BTUs, 13 AUs from earth, 78 miles per hour, etc.) without grasping that we do so because we’re just describing complex value arrangements and relationships. The laws of nature are held to be factual and not logical, but this may be just because the lion’s share of our focus is mostly on macro-material reality. The distinction between logic and fact [each are expressions of different modes of value] blur once it’s recognized that the matter-energy unification is, behind the scene, just the exercise of value arrangements in different expressions.

Regardless of status quo indulgency, logic and fact are tightly woven together and coincide in common sense, as can be seen in Anne Conway [Anne Conway: The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (p. 29)], writing on the subject of mutability: “…let us consider the extent of …mutability. First, can one individual be changed into another, either of the same or of a different species? …this is impossible, for then the essential nature of things would change…

…if the essential nature of individuals could change into one another, it would follow that creatures would not have a true being inasmuch as we could not be certain of anything. Therefore all the innate ideas and precepts of truth, which all men find in themselves, would be false and, consequently, so would the conclusions drawn from them. For all true science or certainty of knowledge depends on the truth of objects, which we commonly call objective truths. If these objective truths were interchangeable, then the truth of any statement made about the object would also change. Therefore no statement could be invariably true, not even the clearest and most obvious, for example…that the whole is greater than its parts and that two halves make a whole.”

Ms. Conway’s quote speaks to at least two relevant issues. First, that P in the I=P^V is an immutable component of each iota of information. If P were mutable, particulars could not progress organizationally, and taxonomic scales would be unpopulated. Coherent, structured Individuals could not have materialized if particularity itself was susceptible to mutation. This is consistent with Conway’s declaration that mutability has necessary boundaries else there would exist no recognizable, species-related being (organizational structure) of particulars. Second, and more important, Conway can be interpreted as affirming [whether intentionally or not] that truth’s presence and subsistence undergirds the fabric of reality in her statement, “…all true science or certainty of knowledge depends on the truth of objects, which we commonly call objective truths. If these objective truths were interchangeable, then the truth of any statement made about the object would also change. Therefore no statement could be invariably true, not even the clearest and most obvious…"

Obviously Conway is not speaking of evolutionary or other sorts of gradual mutation, nor of the mutability conferred on particulars as part of natural life processes, but of the mutability of being qua being itself.

But what has the immutability of P to do with the Necessitarian and compatibilist doctrines?

Informationally speaking, If P is an immutable value, from whence comes devaluation? Necessitarianism is limited to absolute, deterministic values. Falsity, which naturally disrupts proper (t) function, doesn’t exist in matter. Matter cannot be devalued or falsified, except in macro-level perception of simple reorganization of base elements, as was shown. Therefore in neither P nor V in the I=P^V equation are falsifiable for the physical universe, in either its material or incorporeal existents, i.e., things or attributes.

Yet falsity is found in existents, creating tension and resistance in intellectual operation, commonly expressed as moral values, linked to beliefs, demeanors, character and behaviors.

Because the false can be appropriately assigned to organic entities—as in the judgment that cancer is a form of material falsity because it denies the perfection of health—at least some V in information must be falsifiable. Falsity in human essence produces a different kind of mutability than the spatiotemporal relocation addressed above, which is from a microcosmic point of view, illusory. Falsification of essence is, unlike relocation mutation, substantial and embedded in some quantity [fragmentally dispersed] of V within the particular soul. Falsity in the former is merely attributable, in the latter, actual.

Devaluation has reference to a standard, and the comprehensible and unambiguous standard is truth. Truth is logically an absolute. Of the two denominations of value, truth qua truth is always and ever the benchmark of sufficiency, propriety, adequacy and appropriateness. Because fragmentally falsified humans occupy and operate within a fragmentally falsified reality, there may be instances in which the choosing of false over true can be said to best serve purpose n, but no reasonable person can suggest that one should seek the false as a modus operandi for living life because falsity qua falsity only ever leads to truth’s opposite. The false is chaos to truth’s unity, incoherence to truth’s consistency, disorder to truth’s harmony, an advance toward death to truth’s development of life.

Theistic Necessitarianism admits the physical universe is deterministic, but that the operation of human agency has limited but effectual ability to resist Necessitarian inviolability, creating a compatibilist reality—the pattern for which itself, as was shown above, exists in the material realm.

The above isn’t saying anything new—different kind of value for matter than for intellect or soul—just wanted to demonstrate that unorthodox reductionist view of information has degrees of logical correspondence to various features of orthodox schemas of existence/reality.

Sorry but, what is this but a statement of the obvious, that what is, is?How is this going to serve you in life?

Sorry but, what is this but a statement of the obvious, that what is, is?How is this going to serve you in life?

Since your comments are prefaced by quoting the entire op, I'll assume "...what is this but a statement of the obvious.." is an agreement with the premises. Most would not agree that the presentation of value "is", as you put it. That truth is the single most important topic is not a popularly held view today. Truth, the furthest reaches of which is fundamentally absolute in nature, is at minimum ignored by most folks and outright scorned in some circles. The view as presented suggests that value, being the principle 'ingredient' of information [and information the principle ingredient of existence], is the predominant dynamic in the proper operation and interactions in the physical universe, in the forming of beliefs of all stripes (i.e., factual and moral), the ruling factor in the psychology of motive. It also leads to important religious and theological implications, the latter of which are somewhat controversial in Christian thinking but aren't articulated here because this isn't at theology board.

How important is it to anyone to try to synthesize as true a worldview as possible and live according to that model? In other words, the only answer I can think of to your question is, at base how important is it to have true compared to false beliefs?

No. I was thinking the pineal, but that was someone else. Tried a brief Google but couldn’t find it. Where?

That's such a great question, one I'm currently reinvestigating since Plato was the first philospher I've ever read and that description blew my mind. Hopefully I'll be reporting back with the requested goods soon.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Sorry but, what is this but a statement of the obvious, that what is, is?How is this going to serve you in life?

Some other corollaries of a Value-Endued reality:

* Reduces the categorical question, “What is value?” to a simple, common denominator: truth, i.e., the extent to which an existent subsists in a true state determines the measure or degree of its actual (distinct from attributed) value.* Lends credence to the idea of conscience as a defective but functional moral antenna.* Simple value effects—the union of like values and conflict of opposites—could potentially map out a value-driven theory of behavior.* Heedless pursuit of immoral behaviors and lifestyles as a byproduct of falsification in essence is ultimately damaging to the social order because falsification at sufficient levels begets further falsification; any and all pursuit of the false leads incontestably and naturally to degradation of truth and the goods intrinsic to it, passing causally from individuals to normative values embraced within society and culture.* Considers existence from outside analytic philosophy’s subsidiary relationship to science in general, and physicalism/materialism in particular by placing value within the empirical sphere. [see below]* Value woven into the fabric of existence, treated as not merely an immaterial participant in, but as the driving force managing empirical reality, produces observable and theoretically testable moral as well as factual results.* [addendum to #3] A Value-endued reality provides a coherent way of contemplating the human condition—motives, behavior functionality and dysfunction, mental disease and other areas of psychological and sociological interest.* Both moral and factual knowledge are fundamentally reliant on value for their meaning. Although each defers to a different kind of value than the other for its accuracy or correctness [truth], epistemological access to each is not dependent on sociological, evolutionary, psychological or other approaches to moral knowledge. That moral disagreements are more resistant to resolution than factual is observably due to denial of legitimacy to prescriptive value by a consensus whose motives for doing so are, ironically, anticipated by the very principles of the prescriptive forces they deny.

There are also a variety of theological consequences that won’t be addressed here, though one of interest for theists is justification for the idea of God visiting wrath on unrepentant individuals, cities and nations as a tool of the removal of falsity as pathogen, which changes conception of wrath to be viewed as an act of love rather than anger.